3 Ways Marijuana Sorts Conservatives from Libertarians

1) Collective Responsibility

The perception shared by many that little difference exists between Democrats and Republicans persists because little fundamental difference exists between progressives and conservatives. Each orients toward opposing poles on the same axis, a spectrum of collectivism. In his piece at Townhall, Hawkins collectivizes responsibility for individual lives. He writes:

How many lives are we willing to flush down the drain because a significant number of Americans tried pot a handful of times in their lives, got away with it and now feel guilty about it?

That’s quite a presumption. Could it be that opponents of prohibition simply believe it’s wrong?

The greater presumption is that you and I share responsibility for a third party’s behavior. We don’t. People’s lives, like their liberty and their property, remain theirs to dispose of as they wish. That principle proves Hawkins’ many arguments regarding addiction and health hazards moot.

Hawkins opens his piece wondering how we arrived at the point “where Big Gulps are being banned in New York while the welcome mat for potheads is being rolled out in Colorado.” Yet, he never offers a significant distinction between Big Gulps and pot. He cities studies which herald the harm marijuana inflicts when consumed habitually. We stand wondering how his argument against pot differs substantially from Bloomberg’s against soda pop. We can argue over the scope of harm. Yet the question remains whether any harm inflicted upon self ought to be public business. Answering in the affirmative expresses collectivism. As individualists, libertarians lay no claim over their neighbor’s judgment.

Libertarians are like Pacifists. They don't run anything bigger than a Math Club by their beliefs. Their ideology is just an excuse to stay on the sidelines and criticize. I see them like Europeans "partners" in a military alliance. They want to be taken seriously, but they don't want to have a military competent enough to matter.

The path to power for Libertarians is blow up the Republican Party and hope all the refugees become Libertatian. They warn SocCons to drop their social agenda or learn to say President Hillary. Well, the Libertarians keep pushing their social agenda and are happy to split the GOP and elect Hillary. They aren't worried about the economic consequences of Hillary, not enough to help stop her.

They cling to ideological purity more than any TEA Party Type and their ideology is as divorced from reality as the Commielibs'.

Yes, they have. There are numerous incidents yearly of people driving while under the influence of marijuana that cause accidents resulting in the deaths of other drivers. I have yet to hear of someone high on coffee resulting in the loss of control of their vehicle.

My bother is a long term smoker of marijuana. It has impacted his personal life and the lives of his wife and children. His daily routine is "wake and bake".

I've long held the opinion that whether marijuana or alcohol or pills, you get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence, the first offense should result in a minimum year in jail, a second offense should be 2 years minimum and any conviction resulting from injury of other parties should be 5 years.

I don't give a rat's behind what you do in private, but when you bring your behavior into public then be prepared to endure the consequences.

BUT a corollary of the libertarian position on marijuana is that the individual who decides to smoke must be SOLELY responsible for the results of smoking. That means that they, and not the rest of us, must pay for their lung or throat cancer - they are not entitled to treatment if they cannot pay for it. A house fire caused by a dropped roach? They pay the full cost of the fire and police response. etc. etc. Unfortunately, the liberal approach is the individual gets the freedom while the rest of us pick up their costs.

Libertarians are progressives with a different agenda. Always wanting to redefine history to fit their free market ideology.

I'm a capitalist, and love the free market. But libertarians these days are ANARCHISTS, which make them essentially treasonous. We can have broad regulations on business, as we ALWAYS have, without going down the rabbit hole of endless, anti-industrial regulations.

Many people argue that marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to stronger drugs like cocaine or heroin. However, according to the CDC, prescription painkillers cause many more overdose deaths than either coke or heroin (see www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/prescription-drug-abuse). And the number of prescriptions filled for heavy-duty, opioid pain relievers has increased dramatically in recent years (ibid.). So shouldn't we be outlawing the REALLY BAD gateway drugs, like Tylenol, Motrin, aspirin, etc.? In comparison pot, as a gateway drug, seems benign. Seriously folks, I'm just pointing out, in a hopefully humorous way, how inane the whole (unproven) gateway drug theory is. P.S. -- no drugs were used in writing of this comment.

Opiate narcotic drugs work. They are among the oldest class of drugs known to medicine. The downsides are well known to every practitioner. Those are serious medicines which must be used carefully and with expertise.

It is not unknown that the euphoric effect is addicting and withdrawal from these drugs is difficult once the addiction and tolerance has taken hold.

It is well known in the medical profession today that aspirin and Tylenol would never have been approved as OTC drugs given what we have learned.

I agree with you about the gateway theory as nonsense. Some people have a drive to consume something to make them feel better. They will pick whatever they can get. Addiction models seem to run against a brick wall.

Here's the deal: if I could decree that, because the world would be better off without alcoholics, dopers, gamblers, prostitutes, etc.,alcohol, dope, gambling, prostitution, etc. would be abolished, I would issue the decree tomorrow.

Here's the problem: any government that has the power to make me do something for my own good also has the power to make me do something simply because that's what they want.

So, as this social conservative reluctantly concludes, government cannot be trusted with that kind of power. Legalize marijuana. Legalize dope. Legalize booze, legalize prostitution, get government out of the business of legislating vices out of business.

I have less to fear from the neighborhood doper than the goons who break and enter in the middle of night with the approval of a judge, a DA, and a police chief.

Who owns your life? In Virginia now it is the Democrats thanks to the libertarians.

In the last election, there was a guy named Sarvis who wanted to be Governor. He quit the Republican part to run as a libertarian. Even though his policies were straight Democrats (higher taxes, more spending and regulation) he said the magic words: Legalize Pot. With that, Libertarians fell all over him. Didn't matter that Ron Paul told them Sarvis wasn't a libertarian, nor did they bother to research his platform, nor look under it to see the Obama man financing his campaign. Nope, they just wanted to get high.

Granted they still might. MacAuliffe is off to a roaring, hard left start so he probably will try to legalize drugs. In the mean time he is pushing through liberal social policy, will be coming after guns, raising taxes and spending, etc.

So, in Virginia, the Democrats own us and will tighten the leash, all thanks to libertarians and their lust for reefer.

I doubt you have any idea what a libertarian is, but if your description of libertarians in Virginia is true, you have stupid libertarians. If they are that dumb and can be led that easily, it was the republicans that were stupid for not putting out a brighter orange carrot to lead them by(though admittedly, experience shows that dems have more experience in leading the low info voter). As a Libertarian of 37 years, I have voted for 2 republicans and 0 democrats in my voting career.

I see 2 basic flaws in your accusation:1) Was there a Libertarian Party candidate in the Virginia election? If not, there is no significant Libertarian party in the state, so your whines are baseless. 2) If there was a separate LP candidate, I doubt many libertarians actually voted for the dem because of pot so again your whines have no merit.

Stop listening to MSM, both sides of which have good reason to rationalize a 3rd party at every opportunity.

These posts leave me cold. From the dropped context of "We the People" which conveniently leaves out "of the United States" thus identifying the people in question, to the spurious notion that the Constitution somehow prevents the States from making their own laws (of which the opposite is true).

I appreciate that "pot, weed, marijuana" (can you hear Rod Serling's voice over?) is the topic du jour for libertarians and conservatives to haggle over but there are much MUCH bigger fish.

Howabout this? Pj's has a nice contingent of both groups and lots and lots of crossover within those groups. The idea that the lines of distinction between libertarians and conservatives always revolve around drugs and abortion is so old and so stale and it isn't even true any more. There are sites for pro-life Objectivists who've outgrown the notions that somehow, miraculously a baby doesn't really exist until it breathes air. There are tons of conservatives who aren't bothered by notions of personal drug use AT ALL, but understand that the ability and right to make law resides in states and communities so that they can BE states and communities.

These discussions always become garbled and intellectual honesty goes out the window. I strongly suggest that PJ's introduce other topics with the intention of highlighting the differences or similarities of conservatism and libertarianism.

Howdy KeepOnFlyin"Reefer Madness" was overstated, yes. It had a kernel of truth. Almost anything that causes people to feel euphoric and that lowers inhibitions may become habit-forming. Marijuana does both. And sometimes the lowering of inhibitions contributes to violent behavior, just as the use of liquor may.Drugs of abuse have this difference from alcohol: they are not used for flavor or tradition. As a noted philosopher said, "You can drink a beer or a glass of wine without getting blasted." Drugs of abuse, and liquor can be one, are only for the purpose of altering the mood. Some people can enjoy the mood-altering affect and then go back to normal. Others crawl inside the bottle, the brownie, the pipe or the syringe.I'll stand by my position that one's judgment on these issues is one's own right. I'll keep working and hoping to bring drug abuse out from under criminal law. I'm never going to be glad people choose abuse, though.That noted philosopher, incidentally, was Jack Webb in the character of Sgt. Joe Friday.

try this SKIPPY, if you had a magic wand that could ELIMINATE all drugs and their use as well as eliminate all ADDICTION, guess what? someone would make a new DRUG tommorrow and people WOULD take IT dolt grow up drugs are something we as a social group DO get over it

The primary reason I'm against weed is because it tends to cause impairment and altered perception long after it has been used, and being an oil soluble compound it tends to stay in the system, to be released at odd intervals.

Do you want someone to start having old trips while they're on the freeway?

Nicotine doesn't screw with your judgement that way, and our body has a dedicated enzymatic system specifically for neutralizing the effects of ethanol, and we do lock people up if they drive under the influence.

That said, the punishment scale for drug use seems to be way out of whack with the actual crime. For things like PCP, that tend to make users highly violent, I can see felony charges and significant incarceration, but for the ones that don't make you an active threat to everyone around you, I'd think treating it more like a DUI would be more appropriate.

I am frankly astonished that NO ONE here, has addressed the fact that it's very likely that the CO & WA voters who voted FOR recreational legalization may have been "closeted users", who (like most who use alcohol), indulge occasionally. The "extreme" examples cited here (& the ones the media LOVES to showcase) are the "potheads", who have likely NEVER voted & couldn't find their way to the polls. I fully expect the overwhelming majority of those who voted for this to be legal, work full time, have families & pay taxes, (in other words) "Responsible Adults"!!

Libertarianism is based on a fantasy that everybody is rational, all "costs" can be easily quantified, and that their individual knowledge is superior to the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of the generations who have gone before.

I am not sure how you could be more wrong. Libertarianism is based on the idea that everyone is not rational and that laws can't make them rational. Costs can be easily quantifed if everyone is responsible for their own. Public costs of marijuana use would be nil if there were no publicly paid costs.

Leftists beliefs in whether everyone is rational is moot. They believe laws MAKE people rational and all costs are therefore worth it whatever they are.

I would say it was conservatives that are closest to believing most people are rational. Traditions and past proven models are a rational way to set your laws for everyone. They believe the unrational may be against those 'common sense' laws, but they are both the exceptions and, well, the irrational people.